To assess the credibility of the lead SNPs from our discovery GWAS of general risk tolerance, we compared those results to the estimates from our replication GWAS of general risk tolerance. (We did not attempt replication of the results of our six supplementary GWAS in independent data, because we did not have access to such data for these phenotypes.) We first filtered out SNPs with sample size less than one-half the maximum sample size in the replication GWAS. After applying this filter, 122 of the 124 lead SNPs were directly available in the replication GWAS summary statistics, and one of the two remaining lead SNPs was well proxied by a SNP in high LD (r2 > 0.8) with it. For the resulting 123 SNPs, we conducted a (one-sided) binomial sign test to assess whether the directions (i.e., the signs) of the effects of the lead SNPs are more concordant across the discovery and the replication GWAS than expected by chance. We also conducted a (one-sided) binomial test to assess whether a larger fraction of the lead SNPs are significant at
